Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

TLDR

To compare operative times, hospital costs, and surgical outcomes for robotic‑assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). A retrospective cohort of 104 patients (43 RALSC, 61 LSC) evaluated operative time, hospital costs, blood loss, complications, and cure rates using chi‑square and t tests. RALSC had longer operative time and higher surgical costs but similar blood loss, complications, and cure rates compared with LSC, indicating comparable perioperative outcomes with increased time and cost.

Abstract

: To compare operative times, hospital costs, and surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). : A retrospective cohort study of 104 subjects who underwent RALSC (n = 43) or LSC (n = 61) for vaginal vault prolapse was performed. The primary outcomes were operative time and hospital costs. The secondary outcomes included blood loss, complications, and objective cure rates. χ and t tests were used. : The mean operative time was longer in RALSC than in LSC (281 ± 58 vs 206 ± 42 minutes; P < 0.001) with setup time accounting for only 9 minutes of this difference. Direct costs (expressed in cost units) for hospital stay were similar (437 ± 88 vs 450 ± 119 units; P = 0.738) while surgical costs remained higher for RALSC (2724 ± 413 vs 2295 ± 342 units; P < 0.01). Blood loss and complications were similar, and objective cure was not significantly different for RALSC vs LSC (90% vs 80%, P = 0.19). : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy achieves similar perioperative outcomes compared to LSC with increased surgical time resulting in increased costs.